Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.

The opposite approach is the historical materialism in
Marxism whereby people are determined and subdued to
external forces, modes of production, or material
conditions, including nature. Engels writes on the subject
that “the materialist conception of history starts from the
proposition that the production of the means to support
human life and, next to production, the exchange of
things produced, is the basis of all social structure […]
From this point of view, the final causes of all social
changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in
men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal
truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of
production and exchange” (Engels 1970). Marx himself
writes in 1859 in his Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy on the basis of his analysis of society:
“In the social production of their existence, men
inevitably enter into definite relations, which are
independent of their will, namely relations of production
appropriate to a given stage in the development of their
material forces of production. The mode of production of
material life conditions the general process of social,
political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but their social
existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx
1970: 20-21, my emphasis).
This relates to the scientific debate of methodological
collectivism or methodological individualism – the
difference between determinism and free will (Watkins
1973, Gilje & Grimen 2001). All ecological studies are
situated in between the extreme methodological
collectivism and the extreme methodological
individualism. In the heydays of material determinism an
ecology of technology was advocated (e.g. Parsons
1977:28). Friedman, among others, has criticised such
approaches as vulgar materialism and mechanical
materialism which envisages social forms as mere
epiphenomena of technologies and environments, either
as a direct cause or by some economic rationality which
makes institutions the product of social optimalisation
(Friedman 1974:456-457). Implied by the term
”epiphenomena” is that social forms are caused by, or
emerge out of (perhaps as a sort of by-product), the
interactions of environment and technology (Rappaport
1979:45).
Maurice Godelier, among others, has emphasised the
intricate interaction between man and nature, which is
unique for homo sapiens compared to other animals.
“Human beings have a history because they transform
nature” (Godelier 1988:1). This ability to change their
relations with nature by transforming nature itself is
special for humans as beings (ibid:2). In this regard,
Godelier makes some clarifications regarding
modifications of nature. Firstly, there are some spheres
which are outside the direct sway of humankind but still
effecting it, for instance the climate, the nature of the
subsoil etc. Secondly, a part of nature is transformed by
human intervention indirectly through for instance
stockbreeding, slash and burn agriculture, etc. Thirdly,
148
there is the part of nature which is directly transformed
by humans by domestic activities etc. Finally, there is
the part of nature which is modified by humans into
tools or artefacts. Tools and equipments function as
external organs extending the react of the human body.
“Tools, weapons, monuments and objects of every sort
are the material supports for a mode of social life”
(ibid:4). Artefacts or tools can either be used directly or
modified from bone, stone, wood, etc. “The boundary
between nature and culture, the distinction between the
material and the mental, tend to…dissolve once we
approach that part of nature which is directly
subordinated to humanity – that is, produced or
reproduced by it (domestic animals and plants, tools,
weapons, clothes). Although external to us this nature is
not external to culture, society or history” (ibid:4-5).
Humans must attain knowledge and in some instances
control the outer materiality: “To adapt oneself is to
submit to constrains, to take them into account, in order
to amplify their positive and attenuate their negative
effects…none [other species than humans] is capable of
assuming conscious and social control of part of the
objective conditions of its existence” (ibid.). Adaptation
is the way in which humans act in nature, transforming it
and appropriating its resources (ibid:28). “The social
perception of an environment consists not only of more
or less exact representations of the constraints upon the
functioning of technical and economic systems, but also
of value judgements and phantasmic believes. An
environment always has imaginary aspects” (ibid:35).
Rainmaking Death Rituals at Tore cemetery in
Manang
The dawn of habitation in Manang may be traced back at
least to the 12 th century, probably earlier. The ethnic
history of Manang is complex and yet untold. Most
inhabitants may characterise themselves as Gurung
although if questioned more in depth some label
themselves as Ghale, which indicates that there are at
least two clans or groups. It was through the Ghales’
connections with Tibet that the Buddhism in its Kargyud
form found its way to Nyishang (Spengen 1987:137-
139). In Manang Bon religion used to exist along with
the Kargyud sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and all the
monasteries in this area belonged to the latter sect. The
largest gompa in Braga village is assumed to have been
built 500 years ago (Gurung 1976:307). The ancient
kings belonged to the Ghale, which the current Ghale
trace their descendants back to. After the rise of the Shah
dynasty in Lamjung, Manang was defeated, annexed,
and included in the kingdom of Lamjung in the 16 th
century. In 1781, Lamjung united with twenty-five other
petty kingdoms and attacked the Gorkha Kingdom. The
petty-kingdoms defeated and became annexed and
included in the kingdom of Nepal (Manander n.d).
Today, Manang village is a small mountain village with
391 inhabitants and 120 households (CBS 1993:83),